WARNING: Actual philosophy!

reply to post by Itisnowagain

Peter Kingsley is just another story teller, believing in things, that may or may not have happened.

well of course keeping it all in perspective ......nonduality can only be experienced and talking about it is all concepts and ideas ....yeah that is know ...I was referencing Kingsley within the context of knowing ancient philosophy and what they had to say.

Originally posted by dominicus
Study Advaita Vedanta.

Peter Kingsley on youtube.

Nonduality.

Then come back here and reformulate your hypothesis. Because until you study the three above, your coming at all of this with a limited perspective.

Yes, exactly! Until you include all possible viewpoints, all possible possibilities, you cannot claim to have a conclusive answer. Too many people running about knowing a tiny fraction of what there is to know about something, but they think they understand it and there's nothing else to know.

reply to post by TheIrvy


The only view point is from here, yet we make the mistake of thinking there is another. This is the opposite to non-duality. This is the view, this one, can you see it? This one is real.
Any other view is not real, it is an interpretation (more of an obstruction). An illusion that is not seen as illusion will be mistaken for real. Then all sorts stories can be made up in the mind and believed.

[edit on 7-8-2010 by Itisnowagain]

It's not Pascal you want to consider, but rather Plato's "Euthyphro." The main focus of this is, "is there an abstract and universal thing called 'ethical/good' which is loved by the gods -- or is 'ethical/good' defined by the tastes of a god?"

Socrates and Euthypro initally accept "well, it's ethical (good) because the gods love it." However, this leads to the question of "what, really, does 'ethical' mean?"

Philosophers have used a number of schemas to address this, including "moral contingency" and "how do we know what god/gods want"?

You can read a summary of this fascinating concept at Wikipedia:
en.wikipedia.org...

Do not look anywhere else.
What you are looking from, is what you are looking for.

Free will is very much applicable to a God-centric universe. one would simply be playing a game of getting warmer or colder.the further one gets away from the tried and true righteousness the closer to extinction one becomes. do not confuse your errors as the absence of love from God. to presume that would be fallacy and just push yourself further away. it is much more realistic to define ourselves as God-lings exploring the playground of reality from the exaulted high to the pit and back making us more likely to understand our purpose. heres a good read or 100 if you are interested.

www.phoenixsourcedistributors.com...

Originally posted by Byrd
It's not Pascal you want to consider, but rather Plato's "Euthyphro." The main focus of this is, "is there an abstract and universal thing called 'ethical/good' which is loved by the gods -- or is 'ethical/good' defined by the tastes of a god?"

Socrates and Euthypro initally accept "well, it's ethical (good) because the gods love it." However, this leads to the question of "what, really, does 'ethical' mean?"

Philosophers have used a number of schemas to address this, including "moral contingency" and "how do we know what god/gods want"?

You can read a summary of this fascinating concept at Wikipedia:
en.wikipedia.org...

I am amending my post after re-reading the Wiki.

That dilemma, as well as that in the OP, presupposes an existance of God (in Plato's sense, it was "gods" and their unanimous belief).

It is a logical fallacy. I takes for granted an existence. From a purely philosophical point of view, it presents nice mind fodder. But in the end you are no closer to any truth, as the logic tree is built on a logical supposition.



[edit on 7-8-2010 by bigfatfurrytexan]

If there is a god at all, it's not worth my time if it wants its followers to blindly believe the words written thousands of years ago by various backwards tribesmen.

That essentially solves all these problems for me; when asked whether free will can exist with a god, I simply reply 'I don't care'.

Some recent studies have various people wondering whether 'free will' even exists at all, god or no god.

reply to post by LeftWingLarry


There is a thought that I have often had that if our current mindset of science being the pinnacle of discovery holds true, that there is no free will. All actions give rise to further actions. Each being predictable within the mathematic confines of science.

The belief in the "Universal Law Of Consequence" could also yield the same conclusion, with all actions being causative of predictable reactions.

It is interesting to consider.

Here's a thought I had the other day: was Judas' betrayal an act of sin if he was simply doing what Jesus said he would do? If it was God's will for his son to die on the cross as the legend goes, then wasn't Judas just obeying God? put in the context of the Antichrist: Is the antichrist evil if he's simply doing what God said he would do? Isn't he carrying out God's will, too?

Isaiah 45:7 God says that he creates peace and creates evil. makes sense to me, God made everything, and evil falls into that category. I think the majority has been duped by religion into believing the war of God against the Devil is a moral war when it's really just like any other war, it's for territory and power but then they throw in the moral implications to garner support.

You are all making a logical fallacy when you say; god created everything, therefore god created evilness!

Now I am assuming here, so bear with me!

God is infinite love/consciousness, manifested in our reality as light! Now if we remove ourselves from the light/love, we experience evilness.

So it is the removal of ones self from god, that causes evilness. Therefore god have not created evilness, but merely made its existence possible when it gave us free will!

We could also compare evilness to nothingness!
Did god create nothingness?
Well, it can surely be debated that if god created everything, it also created nothingness! However, my personal opinion is that it didn't create nothingness!
Did god create darkness?
No because darkness does not exist per say, darkness is the absence of light!

For the record, I am not a monotheist, I am a pantheistic polytheist (yes I know that is an oxymoron, that is however the definition closest to what i consider myself a believer of)

Originally posted by Leemur
Here's a thought I had the other day: was Judas' betrayal an act of sin if he was simply doing what Jesus said he would do? If it was God's will for his son to die on the cross as the legend goes, then wasn't Judas just obeying God? put in the context of the Antichrist: Is the antichrist evil if he's simply doing what God said he would do? Isn't he carrying out God's will, too?

Isaiah 45:7 God says that he creates peace and creates evil. makes sense to me, God made everything, and evil falls into that category. I think the majority has been duped by religion into believing the war of God against the Devil is a moral war when it's really just like any other war, it's for territory and power but then they throw in the moral implications to garner support.

Would it be a sin if Judas was simply following the commandment of Jesus to "Render utno Caesar that which is Caesar's, and render unto God that which is God's".

If this commandment is to be taken at face value, then Judas did just that. He gave the body of Christ to the Romans, and allowed the spirit to return to God.

If i were to approach it in the mindset of a Christian looking to buck the Catholic dogma.

There's 2 major mindsets that really annoy me.

The first is adopted by some people who look closely at the Bible, and the Christian teachings about the personality and nature of God, and then look at all the horrible and terrible things that have been done in the name of the Christian God, and they see the contradiction, they see the hypocrisy, and rather than determine that the Christian church is guilty of those sins and should be more closely examined, they decide that this must all be God's fault, and as punishment, they pretend to have stopped believing in his existence.

Most atheists, if you listen to them talk, if they were completely honest (an they never were and several will be along in a minute to tell me how wrong I am, but I'm not) are not in a state of disbelief about God, they're actually angry at him for letting them down, and have "demoted" him as a result.

The other mindset really puzzles me. There are people who accept that the church has used God's name to justify acts of violence, they accept that the Bible has been mistranslated and twisted to say things it was never meant to say, but still believe in God as a separate and unrelated entity, but then still can't get this image of a beardy man floating in a cloud surrounded by harp playing angels out of their head, and still view the Bible as God's blog.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

Originally posted by afterschoolfun

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
Um, this is not philosophy in the least.

Your entire OP is based on faulty logic. You presume much. For example, the following:

-If god is perfect and good and all powerful he must be able and powerful enough to create a world with no evil
-Evil exists
-therefore god does not

Evil exists? how do you know that evil exists? Perhaps what you call "evil", i call "shiz happening"?

Evil is a term based on religion. To use it in your logic creates a flaw, as it is a circular logic type of thing. Without religion/God, there is no evil. Evil is dependant on the belief system.

I was going to say something but there's no point. You have no idea what philosophy is and I suggest you keep it that way. You wouldn't understand it.

I know what philosophy isn't. It isn't using a fallacy, such as Circular Cause and Consequence, as a tool to progress through a logic tree. And it most certainly requires something more grounded in logic than cheap ad hominem techniques.

You are the one who put something up here for feedback. I provided you your feedback. If you believe in your philosophy, there are a few things you need to consider:

- if you want to "test" it, grow some thicker skin. No one wants to give critical feedback to a whiner.

- understand that logic is the basis of philosophy. bad logic = flawed philosophy. if you have an emotional attachment to your philosophy (instead of truth) then you will be more likely to employ faulty logic.

- if your philosophy is worthy of being considered by others, then you will be able to defend it with something other than, "Oh well, you obviously aren't worthy my time so i will not bother responding to you" (could you not have made a better attempt at a defense of your logic than that? That, alone, says volumes and should tell you something).

Listen, i was not trying to be rude to you. I provided honest and critical feedback. That is all. Sorry it struck a nerve.

hey man, you're not arguing with me, you're arguing with hundreds of years of thought from the greatest minds of all time. So take it up with them, I'm sure the philosophical community would love to have the correct view's.

reply to post by hippomchippo


I disagree that it is the same old tired rhetoric. Yes, it is about Christianity, but our friend here is attempting to use philosophy to explore it. And thats perfectly legitimate.

It is of course, perfectly legitimate to counter in argument, but I applaud the OP for even approaching the subject in this way. Particularly since it seems you are rather newish to philosophy as a study. Its a worthy endeavor.

Edit to add,

You should perhaps consider reading some of the philosophers from the middle ages and their arguments about the existence of God, how evil can exist, etc.

Anselm of Canterbury

Thomas Aquinas

John Dun Scotus

Al-Ghazali



[edit on 8-8-2010 by Illusionsaregrander]

Philosophy is simply to think! So saying someone cannot do philosophy is actually saying someone cannot think!

Off Topic, when I need to impress the layman, I use the title Autodidact Philosopher; thats someone that have learned to think for themselves

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
That dilemma, as well as that in the OP, presupposes an existance of God (in Plato's sense, it was "gods" and their unanimous belief).

It is a logical fallacy. I takes for granted an existence. From a purely philosophical point of view, it presents nice mind fodder. But in the end you are no closer to any truth, as the logic tree is built on a logical supposition.

Actually, it can also be the foundation of a "so where does ethics/a sense of good come from?" The "the gods love something because it contains an abstract called Goodness" actually doesn't eliminate the possibility of no gods at all. If you feel there are no gods, you can still come at it from the "human spirit/intelligence/reason" angle ... or even human behavior/group behavior angle.

That's what made it so interesting for me.

Originally posted by Schrödinger
You are all making a logical fallacy when you say; god created everything, therefore god created evilness!

Except, if you are Christian or taking your philosophy from the Bible/using it as evidence, it DOES say god created evil.

* I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. (Isaiah 45:7, KJV)
* Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it? (Amos 3:6, KJV)
* Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good? (Lamentations 3:38 KJV)
* Then God sent an evil spirit between Abimelech and the men of Shechem; and the men of Shechem dealt treacherously with Abimelech (Judges 9:23)
* But the Spirit of the LORD departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the LORD troubled him (1 Samuel 16:14)

...and so on and so forth. There's quite a few more of these where it says in the Bible that God creates/sends evil. Other ancient religions didn't have quite the concept of evil that is shown in the Christian Bible.

Originally posted by Schrödinger
Philosophy is simply to think! So saying someone cannot do philosophy is actually saying someone cannot think!

Well, philosophy is not actually that simple. Its not just about thinking, it is the love of wisdom, not thinking. So thinking well, (logic) etc., are included, but if you take note of the many rants against sophists by some philosophers, you will see that just making sound argument itself is not enough.

Plato discusses what makes a philosopher in several of his works, and its a lot more than thinking, though that is required as well.

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander


You are right, it does mean Love Wisdom, or Love of Wisdom, if you directly translate it. But I believe the modern meaning of the word originated with Platon, where he tried to idealize philosophy.

I think it is a viable interpretation of the word philosophy, based on the many references of it; that philosophy, is merely the act of thinking. Whereas philosophia and philodoxoi, are the more structured and rational approach to philosophy!

reply to post by Byrd


What translation are you referring to Byrd?

Because in my translation, the danish translation of 1992, it is more formulated as a consequence.

God CREATED light, and there WAS darkness.
God CREATED peace, and there WAS unhappiness.
I the Lord, brings fourth. (This is a consequence?)

But you are right, there is much evil done in the old testament, by our all loving god, and if you compare the god of the old testament to the god of the new testament, there are clear contradictions, and you could assume rightfully that we are in fact talking about two different gods here.

But that is perhaps for another thread? Don't want to get an infraction and a ban on me for going off topic, against the mighty Byrd

That is a joke btw



EDIT: Typos



[edit on 9-8-2010 by Schrödinger]